Knightshade

I agree, you should stop digging.

You keep making claims with backing a single one up.

And yet if you look around, everyone who knows cars will tell you cars get lower mileage in the winter.

I'm not sure what possible source could convince you, it took like 8 multi-degree professionals to convince you in the other thread.

How bout the guys from Car Talk? They'll tell you it's true too.

You seem to suggest thicker oil does -not- reduce mileage, here's the cartalk guys-

http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/fueleconomy/

"Thicker than required oil will also reduce your gas mileage, because it takes more energy to push through thick oil than it does through thinner oil."

Some other things they have to say about winter mileage-

"Several things conspire to lower your mileage in cold weather. One is lower tire pressure. Even without any leaks, tire pressure drops about a pound for every 10-degree drop in temperature. So if you haven't checked the pressure since it was 80 degrees in the shade last summer, you may have lost enough tire pressure to seriously reduce your mileage."

"The other important change that occurs in the winter is that gasoline doesn't burn as well in cold temperatures. So you're not burning all of your gasoline completely. That means that some of it is being wasted in the cylinders, and that's hurting your mileage."

"This is particularly true if you make short trips, because the engine never gets out of the "warm-up" mode, where it boosts the idle speed and is pouring in extra gasoline anyway."

Now, again, if you have an actual -source- that proves the 2IS doesn't run richer in open loop mode before it reaches operating temp.... (not that it would discount the other points, or be any less true for all the other cars on the road) please provide it.

Or you can keep digging.

Knightshade -

You have a lot of good insight, but your soapbox is quickly becoming far too large for this forum. I suspect the world would be a perfect place to live, if you were its ruler. I learned my lesson the hard way in the LOC. Take my advice now that I am offering below:

Stop berating others, agree to disagree, stop while you are ahead, learn from others advice, learn when to listen, stick to the facts, and most importantly - LOC is a place to discuss topics about our Lexus vehicles and to make friends NOT enemies!

Does it make sense to you that honey attracts more flies than vinegar? Or, will you want to debate me?

Honestly, I don't get the problem.

I've been a member here for nearly a year. Active the whole time. This past week is the first time I've posted a reasonable, true, easily verified fact, and had somebody go crazy trying to argue a point every expert on the topic agrees with. Twice. And it's not like I even started the thread or the debate either time.

I've been a member of other car forums for almost a decade, again without incident.

So I'm not real convinced I'm the problem.

I'll be happy to let this topic go to PMs with smooth1, and let everyone else do their own research on the topic. We'll see if he is as well.

I agree, you should stop digging.

You keep making claims with backing a single one up.

And yet if you look around, everyone who knows cars will tell you cars get lower mileage in the winter.

I'm not sure what possible source could convince you, it took like 8 multi-degree professionals to convince you in the other thread.

How bout the guys from Car Talk? They'll tell you it's true too.

You seem to suggest thicker oil does -not- reduce mileage, here's the cartalk guys-

http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/fueleconomy/

"Thicker than required oil will also reduce your gas mileage, because it takes more energy to push through thick oil than it does through thinner oil."

Now, have you ever seen a bottle of motor oil?

If you have, it usually says something like 10W-30. Do you know why it has two numbers?

Do you know it has something to do with the thickness of the oil at different temperatures?

Some other things they have to say about winter mileage-

"Several things conspire to lower your mileage in cold weather. One is lower tire pressure. Even without any leaks, tire pressure drops about a pound for every 10-degree drop in temperature. So if you haven't checked the pressure since it was 80 degrees in the shade last summer, you may have lost enough tire pressure to seriously reduce your mileage."

"The other important change that occurs in the winter is that gasoline doesn't burn as well in cold temperatures. So you're not burning all of your gasoline completely. That means that some of it is being wasted in the cylinders, and that's hurting your mileage."

"This is particularly true if you make short trips, because the engine never gets out of the "warm-up" mode, where it boosts the idle speed and is pouring in extra gasoline anyway."

Now, again, if you have an actual -source- that proves the 2IS doesn't run richer in open loop mode before it reaches operating temp.... (not that it would discount the other points, or be any less true for all the other cars on the road) please provide it.

Or you can keep digging.

Of course we're not discussing a motor on a bench.

In an actual car if you start the car in the winter in cold weather it will get worse mileage than an identical car started in warm weather in the summer.

Friction will be higher because the fluids will be colder, more fuel used.

The engine will take longer to reach operating temp so it will be in open loop mode longer and consume more fuel.

(and if the car actually moves anywhere on cold tires versus warm, assuming the same initial inflation at room temp, it'll get worse mileage from higher rolling resistance)

The open loop and closed operations no longer change the A/F ratios as in previous models. It used to be considered making the operation safer in an open loop, but no longer, so this isn't a variable anymore.

In an actual car if you start the car in the winter in cold weather it will get worse mileage than an identical car started in warm weather in the summer.

LOL!! No it won't! The ECU will just not send as much fuel to the combustion chamber! The engine will not be as efficient as when it warms up, but again, that doesn't translate to MPG's!!

So you're suggesting that an engine can run less efficiently without using more fuel?

What exactly do you think the word efficiently means?

Lemme try this as simply as possible... I'm fascinated to see how you can continue to give right answers and then reach totally wrong conclusions-

True or false- in colder weather the oil will take longer to reach operating temp?

True or false- the colder and thicker the oil is, the more friction in the engine?

True or false- the more friction in the engine the more fuel it require to run the same?

Can you point me to the Lexus technical info BTW that suggests the 2IS doesn't use open and closed loop mode like just about every other modern car on earth? Especially since guys who have actually scanned the ECU at work observe it using both open loop and closed loop anf the AF ratio changing between them? Thanks!

to pick an incredibly small nit, you're discussing if the DRLs operate when the headlights are on, not if they operate at night.

There's plenty of times you'll have the headlights on during the day (and maybe even a few times you'd have em off at night)

I had mine turned off at my 1k service as I think they're wasteful and my car is dark enough it's pretty easy to see during the daytime anyway so I can't say if they operate with the lights on or not, never got a chance to notice.

Of course we're not discussing a motor on a bench.

In an actual car if you start the car in the winter in cold weather it will get worse mileage than an identical car started in warm weather in the summer.

Friction will be higher because the fluids will be colder, more fuel used.

The engine will take longer to reach operating temp so it will be in open loop mode longer and consume more fuel.

(and if the car actually moves anywhere on cold tires versus warm, assuming the same initial inflation at room temp, it'll get worse mileage from higher rolling resistance)

So in other words, my original claim was:

Cars get better mileage in warmer weather (summer) rather than colder (winter).

And you agree with me.

Thanks for the clarity.

Not sure how I'm "conceding the other points" since they all remain true... oil and such are thicker in colder temps, this more friction, thus more fuel to run the engine until they warm up in the motor.... 100% true point.

Cars get worse mileage on winter blend fuel, without tracking where each and every person gets their gas from we can assume that on average each station sells "about" the same to the same amount of customers, even if which is which changes a bit... so on average mileage in winter is worse due to the less-energy fuel...100% true point.

Every 10 degrees of colder temps drops tire pressure 1 lb, and underinflated tires are bad for fuel economy. 100% true point. You don't want to overfill the tires when icy cold because eventually (though it takes a while) if you're taking a longish trip the tires will heat back up.

And by the way, since you skipped over this point entirely, even modern cars run in open loop mode longer in the winter (since it takes longer to reach operating temp), and it gets worse mileage in this mode since it's running richer. That, on top of the tire issue, the winter blend issue, and the others, all contribute to the worse winter mileage compared to summer. 100% true point.

So the only wrong in the thread so far was your insistance I was wrong, and giving a lecture about IAT and MAF systems, which had nothing to do with anything I originally said.

Just so we're nice and crystal clear.

Oh we are crystal clear alright. Everything you have listed so far effects other things that may or may not effect fuel mileage. Nothing you have listed has anything to do with the temprature or summer vs. winter directly effecting fuel mileage. as everything you have listed can be said no matter what the temprature or time of year. HOW you drive your car will effect fuel mileage. The physical attributes of the vehicle will change and fluctuate no matter what time of year or the outside temprature. So again, your point is moot. But you can continue to think your right.

Every item I listed is directly effected by weather. Every item directly impacts fuel mileage.

Fluids cause increased engine friction when it's colder. That'd be temp related. More friction reduces mileage.

Tires drop 1 psi per 10 degrees. Temp related. Lower inflation is more rolling resistance, reduces mileage.

Open loop uses more fuel, and it's in open loop longer when it's cold out because it takes longer to reach operating temp. Temp related. Using more fuel for same distance traveled is worse mileage.

It's help when trying to claim someone is wrong if you, ya know, made any sense in doing so or offering a single reason why. Give that a shot.

I agree with you. Why Lexus couldn't standardize on an antenna for cell, satellite radio and AM/FM radio like Audi did is beyond me. There seem to be quite a few consumer oriented ammentities in the new IS that were dopped or not implemented because of schedule. For example, easy satellite radio hookup, pop-up trunk, easily accessible fuel and trunk release buttons, fold-down rear seats, etc.

Peter

completely agree - I bought mine and since I have it a couple months now - I can't believe all the corners that were cut

Err...the Antenna issue for XM was fixed for the 2007 model year.... fuel and trunk release buttons are right there to the left of your wheel and down a touch, illuminated even...you want to see pain-in-the-butt releases in comparison try an older supra.

The pop-up trunk is a debatable issue, I prefer it doesn't pop up as when I release it from inside the car I don't need to show the world what is in my trunk while I'm still in the drivers seat. Other folks would prefer it does pop up.

Folding seats is an engineering issue, you'd have to add more cross-member support (and thus weight) to the vehicle to maintain the same rigidity if you put folding seats in... and I suppose they're thinking it's a lux car, not a tercel, so fold down seats is less desirable than a stiffer chassis and better handling... other folks disagree of course but it's not an oversight so much as a specific design choice.

Well, in Canada they are -required- on cars (and probably other countries as well, just haven't checked) so it's increasingly cheaper for manufacturers to just include them with the car so they don't have to add em for specific markets... I know the NTHSA in the US has debated them, including rules on the maximum brightness because there are studies showing they -can- increase accident rates above certain brightness levels... there's tons of info on the topic out there if you want it, I've only skimmed a bit of it.

It'd be nice if somebody figured out once and for all if they really are 'safer" or less safe, or neutral, because if they're really clearly safer then great, mandate em, and make em so you can't turn them off... and if they're more dangerous ban em... and if they're neutral get rid of em because they -are- kinda ugly during the day and wastefull...

But I suspect it's going to be pretty hard to figure that out, as I imagine they're safer, less safe, or neutral depending largely on the conditions at the time including weather, time of day, color/condition of background, road, and vehicles involved, and a ton of other factors nobody will ever bother to filter for....so the debate continues.

So in other words, my original claim was:

Cars get better mileage in warmer weather (summer) rather than colder (winter).

And you agree with me.

Thanks for the clarity.

Not sure how I'm "conceding the other points" since they all remain true... oil and such are thicker in colder temps, this more friction, thus more fuel to run the engine until they warm up in the motor.... 100% true point.

Cars get worse mileage on winter blend fuel, without tracking where each and every person gets their gas from we can assume that on average each station sells "about" the same to the same amount of customers, even if which is which changes a bit... so on average mileage in winter is worse due to the less-energy fuel...100% true point.

Every 10 degrees of colder temps drops tire pressure 1 lb, and underinflated tires are bad for fuel economy. 100% true point. You don't want to overfill the tires when icy cold because eventually (though it takes a while) if you're taking a longish trip the tires will heat back up.

And by the way, since you skipped over this point entirely, even modern cars run in open loop mode longer in the winter (since it takes longer to reach operating temp), and it gets worse mileage in this mode since it's running richer. That, on top of the tire issue, the winter blend issue, and the others, all contribute to the worse winter mileage compared to summer. 100% true point.

So the only wrong in the thread so far was your insistance I was wrong, and giving a lecture about IAT and MAF systems, which had nothing to do with anything I originally said.

Just so we're nice and crystal clear.

There's many reasons folks dislike DRLs (some or all may apply to any given person who does)

1) Debatable benefit... there's studies saying they make cars safer. There's other studies saying they're actually dangerous. (which is a good reason to turn em off if you believe that) Still others saying they do nothing either way.

2) It's a light that'll be on all the time for no good reason (assuming you don't think it's safer) so it's wasted energy and the bulb might not last as long (despite it being on at a tiny fraction of its power)

3) Some folks hate the yellow look of em, either during the day, at night, or sometimes both.

There's probably other reasons people don't like em, but those are the most common ones I've heard.

Most folks drive around at part throttle though, where they'll see better mileage in warmer weather than cold.

Even on a modern car.

This would be taken by anyone with a mechanical background as referring to the intake air temp.

It would be taken by a basic reading of english, and the context of the sentence immediately before it (about WOT making more power in cold weather) to mean that a car sees better mileage in warm weather than cold. Which is does.

The -rest- of the post goes on to explain why, and at NO point does it mention intake air at all.

You just decided to make that -your- point, and say I was wrong about it, when I didn't say a single word about it to begin with.

In colder weather it takes longer for the car to reach operating temp, and fuel economy is worse until it does. In general up to a point your engine works more efficiently when it's warmer

Again, all monitored and adjusted for by the ECU and hence, won't change the fuel mileage. The car would simply run at a higher or lower RPM to create the same amount of power. And in todays engines, tolerances levels are much tighter than say the 1980's in which piston rings would need time to warm up and flex to create the seals on the pistons, but not in todays engines.

Not at all. The engine can not compensate for the oil being thicker when its cold by knowing that it's cold. The internals of the engine will overall experience higher friction and less efficient operation prior to reached operating temps.

Do you know what open loop and closed loop are by the way? Do you know why, and when, the car switches from one to the other? (Hint: temperature is involved, and one is more efficient than the other)

In colder weather rolling resistance is higher because the PSI in your tires drops as the temp does

only for the first few feet of travel as they come up to temp. But even then, your really reaching here.

You're suggesting that tires go from parked-in-winter-cold to "same operating temp as summer" in a couple feet of travel?

Really?

Plus, summer blends of fuel have more energy than winter mixes of fuel.

The term "summer blend" is shorthand for a menu of federally and locally mandated summertime fuel recipes that are designed to cut down on smog. The gasoline we use is always refined from an intricate blend of ingredients; the process combines coffee-dark crude oil with various additives that increase performance or make fuel burn more cleanly. Because overlapping federal and local requirements call for different recipes in different locales and seasons, there are approximately 20 distinct "boutique blends" of gasoline sold in the United States. Some Americans end up pumping a blend called Carb (named for the California Air Resources Board) while others burn Atlanta (named for Georgia's capital, where it's sold).

Refineries brew their summer blends by removing hydrocarbons that are more prone to evaporate in hot weather. These chemicals, called volatile organic compounds, react with airborne pollutants in the summer sun to form ozone, one of the main components of smog. From June 1 to Sept. 15, the EPA mandates that pumps in 12 high-ozone urban areas—such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Baton Rouge—deliver gasoline that meets special low-evaporation standards. Several states have voluntarily adopted the rules, and 15 have enacted their own seasonal-blend regulations on top of the EPA's. For example, pollution-conscious California has mandated that service stations must start selling its summer blend in May.

As the BTU ratings can vary by 3-4% from one fuel company to the next, the 1.5% difference in the summer to winter blend is kinda moot.

That was an extraordinarily long and completely irrelevant description of summer and winter fuel blends.

If you buy your gas from the same company it will have less energy in the winter blend than the summer blend. 1.5% according to you, which certainly might or might not be accurate, but the essential point was IT HAS LESS ENERGY so you will.... what?

Get worse mileage.

It's hilarious when you post 3 pages of stuff that ends up agreeing with me then somehow conclude it means I'm wrong.

It doesn't make any sense, but it's hilarious.

I will try again to get a direct answer out of you, which you seem to dislike giving-

True or false, all else being equal the same car getting fuel from the same place will experience better average mileage in the summer than in the winter?

Check the drag journals on the 350, it's not an insignificant difference in power... air temp has been shown to have a larger impact on drag times than nearly anything else anyone has done to the car so far.

At WOT colder air provides more power.

Most folks drive around at part throttle though, where they'll see better mileage in warmer weather than cold.

Even on a modern car.

In colder weather, especially early in starting the car, fluids are thicker, friction is higher, so economy is worse.

In colder weather it takes longer for the car to reach operating temp, and fuel economy is worse until it does. In general up to a point your engine works more efficiently when it's warme

In colder weather rolling resistance is higher because the PSI in your tires drops as the temp does

Warmer air, being less dense (bad for power at WOT) provides less air resistance to push the car against than cold denser air.

Plus, summer blends of fuel have more energy than winter mixes of fuel.

While none of these is a HUGE factor they certainly add up, and all of them lead to better mileage in the summer than the winter.

And I sure hope it doesn't blow into a huge debate, otherwise someone might sneak in the last word and close the thread!

This is incorrect. Sorry.....

Of course tire pressure and the obviuos things can effect your gas mileage, but warm or cold air coming into the engine has no effect on fuel mileage.

That's why there is an IAT AND a Mass air flow sensor.

Warm air does not result in a leaner mixture of fuel. If a mass ratio of 14.7 to 1, air to fuel, needs to be maintained, then the engine will keep it there. A lean mixture is a mixture with more air (flip side of the coin, less fuel) than the stoich mix requires. To run a richer or leaner A/F mixes, you would have to reprogram the ECU and that is not available yet.

Cruising at 2200 rpm, in warm air, the engine is pulling in less oxygen, and so it is making 10 units of power, and runs at 53 mph. In order to cruise at 55mph, the engine needs to run faster, at 2250 rpms to achieve 11 units of power. Likewise, in a cold air scenario, cruising at 2200 rpm, the engine is pulling in more air, and so it is making 12 units of power, and runs at 57 mph. In order to cruise at 55mph, the engine needs to run slower, at 2150 rpms to achieve 11 units of power.

The differences your seeing at WOT are in the amount of power the engine is capable of making with the RPM range it is limited to, not in fuel efficiency. In colder air, the motor would still be able to produce more power and hence run faster, but it would still use the same amount of fuel.

Can you point out which part of my post, specifically, is wrong?

because I list half a dozen points about when it's cold out. 0 of them have to do with the temp of the air coming into the engine. And you admit I'm correct about them causing worse mileage when it's cold.

Then you tell me I'm wrong by giving a lecture on air temps entering the engine. Which isn't at all what I was talking about.

Ah, so you're allowed to openly insult me but I can't remark on your doing so? I'm unclear how posting acurate facts backed by a slew of experts and sources that happen to point out a moderator is wrong is trolling, but, Ok, consider it noted.

I got 29 MPG from my IS350 from Southern Kentucky to Colubus Ohio. Top that dudes. :D

Not sure if you're using indicated or "actual"

If it's actual Lance has you beat-

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread...ghlight=mileage

29.197 once, over 30 twice

(not the exact same route of course but that'd be kinda tough as a test)

Check the drag journals on the 350, it's not an insignificant difference in power... air temp has been shown to have a larger impact on drag times than nearly anything else anyone has done to the car so far.

At WOT colder air provides more power.

Most folks drive around at part throttle though, where they'll see better mileage in warmer weather than cold.

Even on a modern car.

In colder weather, especially early in starting the car, fluids are thicker, friction is higher, so economy is worse.

In colder weather it takes longer for the car to reach operating temp, and fuel economy is worse until it does. In general up to a point your engine works more efficiently when it's warme

In colder weather rolling resistance is higher because the PSI in your tires drops as the temp does

Warmer air, being less dense (bad for power at WOT) provides less air resistance to push the car against than cold denser air.

Plus, summer blends of fuel have more energy than winter mixes of fuel.

While none of these is a HUGE factor they certainly add up, and all of them lead to better mileage in the summer than the winter.

And I sure hope it doesn't blow into a huge debate, otherwise someone might sneak in the last word and close the thread!

You haven't explained a single thing.

You just keep insisting you're right despite every expert on the topic saying you're completely wrong and every single test done proving it.

The caliper provides a clamping force, this force is applied (instantly) to the pads which translate that force, modified by the pads CoE, to the rotors.

Time is not a factor there.

That force, in the "one panic stop" scenario we're discussing, will exceed the force required to engage the ABS system. All of that force, beyond the traction/friction limits of the tires, is wasted force.

So if the CoE is high enough to engage the ABS system then a pad with a higher CoE will do NOTHING to stop the car any fast. It can't.

You've in no way explained how it possibly could anywhere in the thread. You just keep insisting that somehow one pad does it faster than another, which is physically impossible in this scenario.

Warmer weather, if not romping on the car, can improve mileage, among other things...

Is your car AWD or a stick though? Because those numbers (18/27) are awfully low for a RWD automatic 250... my 350 does better than those numbers.

Barkat, just a suggestion, but have you ever considered understanding the topic you are disucussing before discussing it?

For example, this is the 3rd or 4th time you've mentioned the pads stopping the wheels, when they don't do anything of the sort at all. They aren't even directly connected to the wheels. Those would be the rotors you keep confusing them with.

It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn't even understand the parts they are discussing.

The ABS system takes miliseconds to go from not-braking-at-all to fully engaged.

The pads translate the clamping force from caliper to the rotor -instantly-

Not in milliseconds, but instantly. No time involved. That's why the equation to calculate the force acting on them (and the force they convey onward in the system) doesn't consider time. Time doesn't matter.

The pad itself has no moving parts, why WOULD it take -any- time to translate the force from one part to the other?

You keep insisting it does, but have no idea why it would, since don't even understand what the part you're talking about does, let alone how it does it.

Once again, the list of people who know you are wrong:

Me, The guy who has mutiple degrees in engineering, designs ABS systems for a living, and has written several books on the topic, the people who designed the IS-F brakes, the people who designed the F-sport brakes, the people who did the police brake pad tests, the people who tested the PCCB $8000 braking system, the guy who tested the actual 2IS pads, all the other tech voices on CL, and pretty much everyone on here too.

The people who think you are right:

You.

Just about every person in the thread has ended up agreeing with me so far. Just as they agree with every expert I've cited. NOBODY has ended up agreeing with you once whatever point was in question was explained. I can't imagine why. Can you? Could it be because you're completely wrong? Just a thought.

Yup, and as I've said all along, there's plenty of reasons one might use different pads (or rotors) including roads like you mention (fade issues), weight (in the rotor case anyway) or for wear/tear reasons.

Just stopping distance is NOT one of those reasons, since pads -can not- reduce that.

By the way, here's a review of the PCCB brakes-

http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/0406ec_...akes/index.html

In it they mention three things-

The PCCB brakes provided -the exact same stopping distance- as stock brakes

and

To improve stopping distance on a porsche you should use stickier tires.

and

"we can say that you'll have to use your Porsche considerably harder than we do to realize a significant benefit with PCCB."

here, let me quote their results to you-

"The car's best 60 to 0 braking distance with stock brakes rounded to 112 ft (our standard braking data procedure), and its best distance rounded to 113 ft with PCCB. In both cases, performance was consistent within a few feet over five stops, with no fade. From 80 to 0, european car's long-term car stopped in 200 ft with PCCB, exactly the same as another stock Carrera 4S tested earlier at the same location. "

Over here we have an -honest- company telling you the benefits of carbon ceramic brake kits-

http://www.gmpperformance.com/index.cfm?PG...&PID=186733

Stoptech lists the many advantages. Stopping distance improvement NOT among them.

If brake pads have nothing to do with stopping the car, then internal combustion has nothing to do with moving it. Must be the tires. :D

At the bleeding edge of brake material technology:

SGL Carbon wins award for, among other factors, stopping distance

"The carbon-ceramic brake discs from the SGL Brakes GmbH, a subsidiary of the SGL Group, are manufactured from the innovative composite, carbon-fiber reinforced silicon carbide (CSiC) and offer many benefits. In addition to having a long service life (the length of a car’s service life), half the weight of conventional steel brake discs and almost no abrasion at all (dust emission), improved driving dynamics and a shorter braking distance also represent innovative characteristics of a carbon-ceramic brake system."

"In 2007, the SGL Group is expected to fit approximately 8,000 vehicles from brands including Porsche, Audi, Bentley, Lamborghini and Bugatti."

I spent $8800 on the Porsche PCCB upgrade. By Knightshade's logic, perhaps we should have stopped (pun intended) with drum brakes decades ago.

As I said earlier, quoting marketing materials from the folks trying to convince you to buy their crap isn't the most persuasive thing. There's people trying to sell you magnets that improve your gas mileage too, but it doesn't make it true.

Especially when more honest brake manufacturers openly admit such claims simply aren't true.

Unless you're saying these guys are honest, and Brembo and Stoptech are lying because... why again?

And if you spent $8800 on a brake upgrade and aren't either:

Racing the car

Driving down steep mountains on a near daily basis

Then you're exactly the sucker of a customer these companies love.

Did you actually -read- the report you just posted?

Here's a quote from it:

"When braking to a targeted deceleration rate, where the speed of the vehicle at brake application is the same, the stopping distance should also theoretically be the same, making any measurement of stopping distances irrelevant"

You OWN SOURCE agrees that stopping distances will be the same all else being equal.

This appears right after they explain why they changed their testing methods from the last time, because they concluded the panic stop testing wasn't as important as "comparing pedal effort"

All of this appears on page 4 of the report.

They then show several pages of results showing pads change the pedal effort. Which I've been telling you the whole thread.

Then they explain they tested panic stop distances -after- heating up the brakes with other tests. Which is exactly NOT the situation described in the entire thread on how to test a panic stop. Which means their results weren't showing stopping distance at all. They were showing resistance to fade due to heat. An issue I also discussed since early in the thread.

So what your source -actually says- is:

Pads don't change optimal stopping distance

Pads DO change pedal feel

Pads DO change how resistant to fade the brakes are.

Which are 3 of the points I've been telling you since like page 2 of the thread.

Seriously, why post a source you didn't bother to read or understand?

To know the wattage is not enough, you have to know the sensitivity! (this gives the information, how loud a speaker plays - you can't say how fast a car goes if you know it has 200hp; if you don't know the sensitivity of each of the speakers, the result could be that e.g. the midrange plays much louder than before, but the bassrange much less - this will sound horrible, even if you installed the best speakers!)

The cheapest and easiest way to improve the sound would be to "hack" the DSP of the ML-System. The factory-setup is bad and the sound-options-menu influences the wrong frequencies

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THERE IS A KIND OF "HIDDEN MENU" WHERE YOU CAN CHANGE MORE THAN THE STANDARD-SETTINGS?

linn

No hidden menu. And honestly the only thing you really need to do to "improve" the ML system is wire in a $2 resistor to tone down the center channel speaker... it's nice for movies but a little strong for regular music. Frequency response is fantastic on the ML, it's just the staging is a bit off due to the center channel being a bit overpowering normally.

If one totally ignores the distance the car travels from when the pads first engage the disks till the time the wheel stops turning, then braking distance totally depends on tire adhesion in a single panic stop. However, that distance cannot be ignored. If, a mighty big word.

I don't even know what you're trying to say there. Neither do you I suspect.

Once again, "time" does not appear as a variable in any equation related to braking force.

The amount of time it takes the -entire- brake system to go from "not stopping at all" to "ABS fully engaged" is milliseconds...

You seem to keep thinking the pads have -anything- to do with directly stopping the wheels, and they don't. They're not even directly connected to the wheels, the rotors are.

The -only- thing the pads do is translate the clamping force of the caliper into frictional force to the rotor. This happens instantly.

Multiply the clamping force by the CoE of the pad, and that's the force on the rotor. Instantly.

As long as the CoE is high enough to produce enough force to engage ABS the car will stop in EXACTLY the same distance as with any other pad that can engage ABS.

It's really pretty simple math that everyone else involved understands and you seem to completely not grasp.

For non ML you basically have an 8" sub in the back, then 4 identical sets of 3-way component speakers, one set in each door.

Each set is-

1" Tweeter

2.6" Mid

6.5" Woofer

All the in-car speakers are 4 Ohm, the sub is 2/2... the sub is rated 35/35W the interior speakers are rated 25W for the tweeters and 21W for the mids and woofers.